I had remembered The Democratic Party as a claim about a party inventing an animal. The actual paragraph has a more specific mechanism: opponents go hunting “instead of voting”. That is a claim about taking voters away, not winning their agreement.
There is a difference between persuading somebody that an animal exists and persuading them that antagonizing the other party is more urgent than the election. Which part are people defending?
The second part. A distraction does not have to make you like the people arranging it. It can make you dislike them enough to spend the day doing something else.
So would planning the trip. The paragraph is describing where the opponents put their effort, not necessarily one morning with everyone leaving at once.
It says “instead of voting”, though. Losing time and losing a vote are different effects. I do not want to defend a smaller claim while keeping the large result.
The animal-rights part explains the provocation. If the opponents go after the animal to make a point, they have let the other party choose what the point is about.
And a person who sets out to antagonize you does not usually check whether you benefit from being antagonized. I recognize that part of the proposed strategy.
What I want to know is whether the vote is supposed to disappear because the person is absent, or because the hunt has become the whole political argument. We are still giving two explanations for one “instead”.
The scale cuts both ways. A difficult trip might keep someone away longer; it might also mean very few people go. Those do not cancel each other without figures.
I had remembered The Democratic Party as a claim about a party inventing an animal. The actual paragraph has a more specific mechanism: opponents go hunting “instead of voting”. That is a claim about taking voters away, not winning their agreement.
There is a difference between persuading somebody that an animal exists and persuading them that antagonizing the other party is more urgent than the election. Which part are people defending?
−+Collapse or expand reply by rustred
The second part. A distraction does not have to make you like the people arranging it. It can make you dislike them enough to spend the day doing something else.
−+Collapse or expand reply by marl
Then the day matters. A hunting trip at any other time does not replace a vote.
−+Collapse or expand reply by brickwork
So would planning the trip. The paragraph is describing where the opponents put their effort, not necessarily one morning with everyone leaving at once.
−+Collapse or expand reply by halfstep
It says “instead of voting”, though. Losing time and losing a vote are different effects. I do not want to defend a smaller claim while keeping the large result.
−+Collapse or expand reply by teaspoon
The animal-rights part explains the provocation. If the opponents go after the animal to make a point, they have let the other party choose what the point is about.
−+Collapse or expand reply by wrenched
That would make the rights campaign useful even to somebody who did not care about the animal. It supplies a thing the opponent can be seen attacking.
−+Collapse or expand reply by cansleeve
And a person who sets out to antagonize you does not usually check whether you benefit from being antagonized. I recognize that part of the proposed strategy.
−+Collapse or expand reply by halfstep
What I want to know is whether the vote is supposed to disappear because the person is absent, or because the hunt has become the whole political argument. We are still giving two explanations for one “instead”.
−+Collapse or expand reply by metricsea
I would still need numbers before accepting the electoral result. How many people have to choose the hunt, and where are their votes being lost?
−+Collapse or expand reply by windowseat
getting somewhere to hunt a giraffe sounds like a considerable commitment. it is not the sort of errand you fit in before voting.
−+Collapse or expand reply by nailbrush
The scale cuts both ways. A difficult trip might keep someone away longer; it might also mean very few people go. Those do not cancel each other without figures.